1990 (11) TMI 253 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants entitled to refund under Notification No. 80/80 despite missing declaration

The appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 80/80 for a refund of duty paid on clearances during a specific period, despite the ... Value of clearances Issues:Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 80/80 dated 19-6-1980 by way of a refund of duty already paid on clearances during a specific period in the absence of a required declaration.Analysis:The issue in the appeals revolved around the entitlement of the appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 80/80 dated 19-6-1980 for a refund of duty paid on clearances during a particular period. The notification provided an exemption to manufacturers based on certain conditions, including the submission of a declaration. The lower appellate authority denied the appellants the benefit of the notification due to the absence of the required declaration, stating it as a condition precedent. The appellants argued that the declaration was not required to be made before effecting clearances and that the purpose of the notification was to benefit small producers/manufacturers. They contended that the failure to make the declaration was a technicality and should not bar them from availing the substantive benefit. Additionally, they highlighted that a subsequent declaration led to a lower rate of duty being granted by the department.The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments and emphasized that the notification aimed to exempt small producers/manufacturers whose annual clearances did not exceed a specified limit. The appellants had not surpassed this limit during the relevant financial year. The Tribunal clarified that the declaration outlined in the notification was procedural and not a condition precedent for availing the benefit. It noted that a substantive benefit should not be denied due to a procedural lapse. The Tribunal highlighted that a series of judgments supported this principle, emphasizing that a substantive benefit cannot be withheld for a procedural error. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of estoppel, stating that even if duty was paid under an approved classification list, a refund claim could still be made within the stipulated time. The Tribunal confirmed that the assessments were provisional, negating any time-barred claims. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were granted a refund as a result of the judgment.